Everyone keeps saying ‘choose your group strategically based on where you want to exit,’ but here’s my problem: I don’t actually know yet. I’m starting as an analyst in a few months, and I’m interested in tech, PE, and consulting, but I’m not locked in on any of them. And from what I hear, different groups have different exit profiles—some groups feed into tech, some into PE, some are just better for general prestige.
I’ve been talking to people about this, and I’m getting mixed signals. Some say ‘just go where the work is interesting,’ others say ‘tech groups are valuable if you think you might exit to Silicon Valley,’ and a few have mentioned that certain groups have stronger track records with specific exits. But nobody’s giving me a framework for actually thinking through this trade-off when I’m genuinely uncertain.
So I’m curious: if you didn’t have a locked-in exit plan when you started, how did you approach choosing your group? What ended up mattering most—the prestige of the group, the types of deals you’d work on, the people in the group, or something else entirely? And looking back, would you have chosen differently if you’d known your exit path earlier? What should I actually be asking people or assessing when I’m trying to make this call?
honest answer: it doesn’t matter as much as they say. a tech group doesn’t guarantee a tech exit, and a pe-heavy group doesn’t guarantee pe. what matters is your own performance, your network, and what you learn. pick the group with the best mentor or the most interesting deals. your exit will be determined way more by your results and relationships than by the group banner.
wait so the group choice is less critical than i thought? that’s actually kinda reassuring. so its more about finding good people to learn from than strategizing the exit?
also makes sense that if u do well anywhere ull have optionality anyway. less stress about the ‘perfect’ choice
The honest answer is that group choice matters less than execution quality, but placement dynamics are real. If you’re genuinely uncertain about your exit, prioritize two factors: the strength of senior mentors who’ve successfully exited to places you might care about, and the types of transactions that align with your interests. Tech groups tend to have stronger relationships with venture and growth equity firms, while corporate finance or industrials groups often feed more directly into traditional PE. However, if you perform well regardless of group, your optionality expands significantly. During your group selection conversations, ask directly about where recent analysts have gone—not just the partner track, but the exits to competing industries. That tells you what’s actually possible from each group.
The fact that you’re thinking strategically about this is great! Whichever group you pick, strong performance opens all doors. Focus on learning as much as possible and building real relationships, and you’ll have amazing options!
I picked my group because of one person—a VP I really connected with during recruiting who I knew had gone to tech after banking. Ended up that person became my mentor, introduced me to his network, and when I eventually moved to product management, his introduction carried weight. Sometimes the person matters way more than the group name. That relationship was the real differentiator for me.
Looking at exit patterns across groups, tech-focused groups (TMT, healthcare) place analysts into growth equity and tech PM roles at roughly 2x the rate of generalist groups, while corporates and industrials feed more heavily into traditional PE. However, the variance within groups is substantial—a high performer from almost any group can access most exits, while a mediocre performer from a prestige group may face constraints. The data suggests that if you’re uncertain, optimizing for deal quality and mentor strength outweighs group prestige. Most successful exits correlate more strongly with individual relationships established during banking than with group placement mechanics.